Category:Places in New Jersey that prohibit the sale of alcohol[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:listify and delete. ℯxplicit 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete; this is being used as a "current" category; i.e., articles come and go as their laws change, hence it's not defining. At one time, all places in New Jersey (and the 47 other states) prohibited the sale of alcohol - see Prohibition in the United States.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or listify) per nom and as non-defining. DexDor(talk) 05:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- It is not sufficiently defining or fixed to require a category, but worth a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete per above.Djflem (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There was not enough support to warrant a list. However, if anyone has interest to create one, I copied the category's contents on the talk page. ℯxplicit 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete; this is being used as a "current" category; i.e., articles come and go as their laws change, hence it's not defining. At one time, all counties in Kentucky (and the 47 other states) were dry - see Prohibition in the United States.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- It is not sufficiently defining or fixed to require a category, but worth a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging of category has gone wrong: can someone fix it? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I copied tag from another category at cfd today). DexDor(talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There was not enough support to warrant a list. However, if anyone has interest to create one, I copied the category's contents on the talk page. ℯxplicit 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete; this is being used as a "current" category; i.e., articles come and go as their laws change, hence it's not defining. At one time, all counties in Kentucky (and the 47 other states) were dry - see Prohibition in the United States. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- It is not sufficiently defining or fixed to require a category, but worth a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Headcount has this discussion split down the middle. However, the weight of the arguments ultimately tipped the discussion to delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Categories are meant to group pages together by shared characteristics that are defining of their subjects; a share name simply does not suffice to satisfy this aspect of categorization. The content is allowed to be listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, simply not through a category. ℯxplicit 03:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By a century-long tradition, Zamenhof-Esperanto objects do not have to have a "physical" connection to the language or its creator. "Merely being named after it" is actually enough for an object to qualify as a ZEO. The objects that you suggest should not be in this category are actually all listed as ZEOs in the main article Zamenhof-Esperanto object (have you read that one?). In addition to this category therefore not being that small, it is also does not have "no potential for growth" (as per the other part of WP:SMALLCAT). There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of these objects, and articles on more may eventually come up, such as the square in Vienna (de:Esperantopark und Girardipark), the Zamenhofpark in Berlin (de:Zamenhofpark), the Esperanto hotel and congress center in Fulda, Germany, which today accounts for half of the mentions of "Esperanto" in German media ([1]), or the Esperanto ferry (fa:اسپرانتو (کشتی)) which is said to be the very first ZEO and linked the Canary Islands for some 70 years. Each of them have a chance of being notable. And I've just added The Ludwik Zamenhof Centre in Białystok, Poland, which already had an article here. For the record for future readers, let me add that the recent interest in this topic and category has probably been caused by an ongoing site notice campaign to support participation in the Commons:Wiki Loves ZEOs 2018 photo contest. --Blahma (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. "Merely being named after" may qualify for a ZEO but not for a category. The main article Zamenhof-Esperanto object provides a fine list of ZEOs. Oculi (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As said WP:SMALLCAT doesn't fit because the category has a lot of chances to grow, specially in short or middle term thanks to the contest Wiki Loves ZEOs that's running right now. And cataloging them just in "Esperanto culture" is not the best option as all they share common characteristics. Not all of them are Memorials, not all of them are Asteroids, not all of them are Sculptures, but all of them are objects related to Esperanto, its culture, people and its creator Ludoviko Zamenhof as detailed in the book Monument pri Esperanto by Hugo Röllinger. --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please name a few examples of objects that might get an article soon and do not have WP:SHAREDNAME issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sahaquiel9102's rationale. ~★ nmaiad 03:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. We do not allow categories for things named after a person. They can be listified in a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now Per WP:SHAREDNAME. A list within the article of things named after something is fine and, if there a ton, a separate list article like List of streets named after Martin Luther King Jr. is also fine. Just being named after something is not defining though. (No objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles about the actual topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Marco, Oculi, C46, RD etc. DexDor(talk) 17:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed, "Zamenhof/Esperanto object" is itself part of Esperanto culture - the notion having existed for a few decades at least (in 1997, the term "ZEO" was coined, but already the 1934 Esperanto Encyclopedia had an article titled Stratoj kaj monumentoj listing 54 cities in which Esperanto and/or Zamenhof were honored by Streets and monuments). Since then, there have been books, commissions, solemn inaugurations, regional lists, recently also Facebook groups and most recently a Commons photo contest on this topic. Preventing the objects being categorized as such on Wikipedia, though on seemingly valid grounds, means ignoring that part of Esperanto culture. Esperanto is firstly a language, and a one whose survival is fully dependent on promotion, and therefore it is no wonder that its culture has long been so obsessed with things people have named after it (or its creator). --Blahma (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
